"Black Holes are the Engines that Create New Universes" (Today's Most Popular)

“Our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe.” In a remarkable paper about the nature of space and the origin of time, Nikodem Poplawski, a physicist at Indiana University, suggests that a small change to the theory of gravity implies that our Universe inherited its arrow of time from the black hole in which it was born.

Poplawski says that the idea that black holes are the cosmic mothers of new universes is a natural consequence of a simple new assumption about the nature of spacetime. Poplawski points out that the standard derivation of general relativity takes no account of the intrinsic momentum of spin half particles. However there is another version of the theory, called the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of gravity, which does.

This theory predicts that particles with half integer spin should interact, generating a tiny repulsive force called torsion. In ordinary circumstances, torsion is too small to have any effect. But when densities become much higher than those in nuclear matter, it becomes significant. In particular, says Poplawski, torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole.

Astrophysicists have long known that our Universe is so big that it could not have reached its current size given the rate of expansion we see now. Instead, they believe it grew by many orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the period known as inflation.

Poplawski's approach immediately solves the inflation problem, saying that torsion caused this rapid inflation, which means the Universe as we see it today can be explained by a single theory of gravity without any additional assumptions about inflation.

Another important corollary of Poplawski's approach is that it makes it possible for universes to be born inside the event horizons of certain kinds of black holes where torsion prevents the formation of a singularity but allows energy density to build up, which leads to the creation of particles on a massive scale via pair production, followed by the expansion of the new universe. "Such an expansion is not visible for observers outside the black hole, for whom the horizon's formation and all subsequent processes occur after infinite time," says Poplawski. For this reason, he emphasizes, the new universe is a separate branch of space time and evolves accordingly.

Poplawski's theory also suggests an solution to why time seems to flow in one direction but not in the other, even though the laws of physics are time symmetric.

Poplawski says the origin of the arrow of time comes from the asymmetry of the flow of matter into the black hole from the mother Universe. "The arrow of cosmic time of a universe inside a black hole would then be fixed by the time-asymmetric collapse of matter through the event horizon," he says. Translated, this means that our Universe inherited its arrow of time from its source. "Daughter universes," he says, "may inherit other properties from their mothers," implying that it may be possible to detect these properties, providing an experimental falsifiable proof of his idea.

Casey Kazan via Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.0587: Cosmology With Torsion - An Alternative To Cosmic Inflation

Get Your Daily Dose of Awe @'The Daily Galaxy' in Your Facebook News Feed

Comments

[TigTii]

Wow you have to admit thats some prettycool stuff though.

www.real-privacy.int.tc

[Greg]

My head just exploded.

[dwarf galaxy]

It only makes sense. I hope it's true.

[Payne-Apple-Express :)]

isn't this a very old article from months ago???

[Power of the Unknown]

Back holes spawning universes is not a new idea, but it sounds like this paper adds some details to the idea.

When you combine the idea of baby universes with Quantum theory's Many-Worlds interpretation and inflationary cosmology's pocket universes, you end up with a universe that is really rather large.

[warhammer of reason]

It reminds me of Asimov's "The Gods Themselves".

[remoran]

I read and quoted Poplawski's theory in my blog beyondrealtime.com as it, to me, is the most logical and elegant approach to defining the multiverse as it removes singularities and inflation from the birth of the universe equation and replaces these complex and somewhat artificial theories with something that has a common sense connect to how reality works at the deepest level.

[Ray in Vegas]

I swear I have always believed this. I know I must have read it somewhere but this concept has always made perfect sense to me. Matter collapsing into a black hole is the exact analog of a big bang.

[dferedf]

The universe is always amazing, give us infinite imagination

http://yangzhi.pifa7.cn/
http://ynxtls.pifa7.cn/

[jacob]

Interesting theory - so where did the Universe come from whose black hole created our universe? Is it turtles all the way down?

[olivia]

The natural conclusion then, if you agree with Hawking radiation and such, is that our universe will simply evaporate, over time, out of existence.

[abigail]

I know, black hole evaporation, from the inside, probably looks fairly similar to a "big rip"

[isabella]

But how come we are not crushed if our universe is inside a black hole? Are we in a Goldilocks spot inside the black hole?

[Rafael Azanza]

Our solar system is but an atom in the anus of God.

[bigfan]

Isabela, the interior of a black hole expands to make room for our universe.

[JM]

For a science-fiction treatment of this idea, see the novel "CoSM" by the astrophysicist Dr Gregory Benford.

[herodotus]

universe expansion is a black hole implosion? meaning the arrow of time isn't moving forward as we think and know it ...but rather the arrow of time is moving backwards? everything the universe has to show us is X amount of light years away and we are forever looking at them as they were in the past, never able to see them as they are currently...amazing!!since i was little i had always imagined the universe breathing: an expansion-retraction sort of relationship. we need more brilliant minds on the planet.

[Paolo]

It's one of these theories similar to sting theory, unless someone can come up with an experiment or observation that can be used to test the theory, then it's nothing more than a religion (i.e., a theory based on belief rather than observation).

[SB]

This could be a long drawn out argument but both science and religion are theories of speculation based on observations.

[SB]

This could be a long drawn out argument but both science and religion are theories of speculation based on observations.

[.Q.]

SB posted: "This could be a long drawn out argument but both science and religion are theories of speculation based on observations."

I can't agree. I like this description of the differences between the two.

from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2248

The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones).
Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.

All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiiting case in which the theory does not work).

Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute to it's proof. It is also unprovable.

if something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don't want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.

[UltraBen]

The best thing for Humanity is to get rid of religion and embrace logic and scientific reasoning. Science gave us everything good we have today and more so into the future. Religion only brought war, division and discrimination based on some fairy tale that any intelligent and influential individual can fabricate and propagate.

[SB]

All science, including facts, will resolve in "theory" at some point. Science work great for empirical values but in every scenario the empirical measurements will resolve somewhere in non-provable theoretical venue. Pi in the empirical world, with a finite number of quantum units, must (and does) empirically resolve yet conceptually will not. Empirical science is limited to what can be measured and repeatable, but if the measurements tools themselves become theoretic and conceptual (as pi, infinity, and alternate universes), the empirical world, under the surface, may not be so empirical after all.

[Poeteye]

BLACK HOLE
-- James Ph. Kotsybar

Containing nothing that’s ambivalent,
more than dark, which would only be dreary,
death’s non-spiritual equivalent
crushes our intellect to theory.

Passage through is most certainly
one way, and thus it incites our speculation.
What would occur, if we wandered astray
into this singular aberration?

It’s relative to where you’ve placed your clocks.
From outside, we’d seem to fall forever.
Beyond that, it’s puzzling paradox.
We only know that we’d leave it never.

A downward orbit is how it begins,
and nothing’s jolly when gravity wins.

[Joe]

In Hinduism they believe Brahman to be consciousness itself, which is immaterial and formless, but gives form to the world (the illusion, or maya). Hindus can therefore accept the multiverse theory because "God" is existence itself, which is provable (cogito ergo sum). If "God" is the "I AM", then "he" can be anything, like planets, people, black holes, alternate universes, etc. The important thing to note here is that the forms are not real, they are projections of "God", just like Plato's Forms are only shadows on the cave wall.

It's easy to knock down religions, especially the Western ones where God is separate from the universe, but difficult to grasp the Eastern philosophies. If "God" is simply existence itself, can you deny God then? Can you deny your own existence?